2. If a piece of kosher ohr hakaiva that was pickled with milk was then used to make cheese:

2. If a piece of kosher ohr hakaiva that was pickled with milk was then used to make cheese:

a) The cheese is mutar if there is 60 against the kaiva.
b) The cheese is assur md’rabbanan even if there is 60 against it because the
kaiva is an issur d’rabbanan.
c) 60 doesn’t help in this case because the milk that comes out of the
kaiva is min b’mino.
d) This is a case of ze v’ze goram and the cheese is mutar.

A, D

אין מקום להתיר כשהקיבה מנבילה או טריפה או מבהמה טמאה, "אפילו באלף לא בטיל" וזה אסור לפי הרמ"א (המחבר ורמ"א סימו פז, סאיף יא) והוא משבח את הרשב"א ור"ן. אולם לקיבות כשרות מביא לידי היתר לפי טעם שבלוע בגבינה או לא. בזמן הזה אנחנו לא מוצאים בן שלא בן ברית לטעם משומכים על ששים. תשובת א' נכונה.
אין מקום למצוא שהקיבה אסור כשהקיבה כשרה. תשובת ב' לא נכונה.
ותשובת ג' לא נכונה מפני שמין במינו צריך ששים להיות מותר.
זה רק מצב של "זה וזה גורם" כשיש מעמיד כשר (ולא מנבילה או טריפה או בהמה טמאה) יש היתר אם יש ששים נגד האיסור (רמ"א סימו פז, סאיף יא). תשובת ד' נכונה.

1. Is it mutar to eat meat that was pickled in chalav shechuta?

1. Is it mutar to eat meat that was pickled in chalav shechuta?

In סימן צ סאיף ג, the Rama states we ought not be concerned that milk left inside of an udder and left overnight to congeal inside of it. We do not call this כבוש כמבושל in this case. The Taz (יב) cites the Issur V'Heter HaAruch (דין טו) that apparently claimed that regarding chalav sh'chuta, Chazal did not include in its gezeira an issur on cold chalav sh'chuta.

But this same law does not apply for other meat besides the udder. If a piece of meat, other than the udder as implied by the lashon "בשר אחר", were soaked in the chalav sh'chuta, it would be אסור as if it had been left in חלב קרוי מדאורייתא.

But the Taz contradicts this and calls his reasoning a violation of the g'zeira al g'zeira principle. He claims the first edict covers basar b'chalav in general, that mi'd'rabbanan meat pickled in milk is assur. To include in this din chalav sh'chuta would to lay a second g'zeira on this already widely-encompassing legislation.

But the Nekudot HaKesef [ב, more clearly explained by the Mishbetzot Zahav, refers to Tosfot in Hulin 104a that claims there are places where one edict is enacted on the heels of another without concern for the violation of such a concept. M"Z goes even further saying that poultry that is kavush in chalav sh'chuta is also forbidden, which would imply two edicts are being laid on top of a presiding one.

The Pitchei Tshuva (ד) defers to the Be'er Heteiv (כב) and the Dagul Mer'rava [ב]. The Dagul attacks the Taz as implying by his argument against one edict being enacted on top of another, that salted poultry that pickles in the blood that is polet from it would be mutar (also cited as an argument by Rav Akiva Eiger and the Be'er Heteiv).

The Issur V'Heter, Nekudot HaKesef, Dagul Mer'rava, Rav Akiva Eiger, Mishbetzot Zahav and the Shach forbid the meat pickled in chalav sh'chuta while the Taz permits it.